Ooops. Expensive mistake. Pay up or argue to the death?

It’s like setting fire to a building then being surprised at receiving a bill for the damage that the sprinkler system didn’t extinguish. Funny though! 😀

I can provide you with a 100% foolproof (although given your wife’s track record I may have to introduce a disclaimer),water tight,cast iron ,guaranteed defence that will get you out of paying any punitive damages.
And the best bit……it’ll only cost you £300 8)

So you expect a failsafe device to avoid someone damaging a product? A sort of idiot release-valve? (Sorry).

Business owner has his/her property damaged and you want to argue they should take responsibility?

If I accidently drive into a pump can I argue there should have been metal barriers protecting the pumps?

Pay up. I hate this blame culture when it is clearly your wife’s fault (sorry).

£300 is not a great deal in the grand scheme of things.

Blame culture! No no no. This is about standing up for reason and fairness my friend. I’m arguing this out for the future generations so that a new system will be found to stop the little people from being unreasonably charged. We must stand as one and we will conquer! We do not owe anyone anything we don’t need to be grateful for a service provided and roll over when things go wrong. Responsibility works both ways.
There are signs at another local garage that ask you not to pull the hose too hard towards your car as it might release the coupling. Would I expect a £100 bill if it popped off in my hand. Hell no! This is part of their responsibility for selling the LPG

£300 is an excessive charge for a reasonable mistake.

More odd analogies. Mine were better.. so there!

+1 for calling Cameron Forecourt about a rough cost.

My other half has a relative who works for them. They dont mess about and do specialise in that kind of repair.

Since you are so smug and keen to point out that you fighting for us (thanks for that, have you chosen your costume or theme music yet?) PLEASE sue the garage,you owe it to us all.

and

£300 is an excessive charge for a reasonable mistake.

A reasonable mistake is leaving your wallet in the car and only realising when you get to the front of the queue and having to go back for it.

Driving off with the hose still in the car is, regardless of any safety devices, inherently dangerous and shows that the driver of the vehicle was both distracted (as has been admitted) and therefore driving without due care.

Safety devices on fuelling devices have been known to fail;

If it were my wife I’d be paying up, explaining to her that perhaps a bit more attention to detail was in order and arranging to carry out future refuellings myself when ever possible.

Pay up. £300 sounds good.

£300 sounds good.

Not when he queried it and they reduced it to £114.

It does sound like they were trying it on a bit, if they were so quick to drop down to almost 1/3 of the initial cost.

I think I’d be happy to pay the £114 under the circumstances.

Well done for paying and admitting liability.

Sounds like the op was so annoying that the garage was happy to get any compensation for the damage which was caused by negilance.

theocb i actually am a lawyer (check my posting history) i strongly advise you to pay up shut up and run away . also ensure the garrage sign in full and final settlement of all claims world wide. The garrage have to install the safty device to mitigate the potential harm caused by the small percentage of LPG users unsafe to fill their own cars . The responsibility to do this lies with the garrage as in practical terms they are the ones best placed to achive the safty outcome . But the risk and liability being avoided is the negligent user who cannot be identified. Once identified the garrage and the industry are entitled to pass the full cost of all safty systems and all negligent filling on to the negligent users .

This is the argument successfully deployed by supermarkets to sue indentified shoplifters for a proportion of their full security costs ie all their store detectives cctv instalation and management time.

Your wife could be liable for a significant percentage of the uk’s LPG safty costs.(the group of users negligent enough to cause the harm is small)

Plus if any American lawyers find out they will go for a percentage of the multi milion payouts for the two LPG explosions there (i don’t think they would succeed but the cost of defending would be huge)

Are you sure the Garrage were not just sucking you in to accept it was your wife before wheeling out the big claim??

I sugest you check your insurance.

Next time I do something really stupid, which I’m quite prone too, can you come and sort it out for me please? Getting the bill reduced to £114 sounds like a right result to me! 😆

Once identified the garrage and the industry are entitled to pass the full cost of all safty systems and all negligent filling on to the negligent users

😯 and Yay! for crankboy.

I’m interested to know what a court would make of it all.

I’d like to think you’d end up in jail

We must stand as one and we will conquer!

I aint standing with no fools.

Before your wife used it the item was fine, after it doesnt work due to your wife’s negilegence.
What was damaged is largely irrelevant surely? You might want to be careful, as if the pump cant be used, they could possibly charge you with lost revenue as well.
She broke it, she pays for it. Simple

Fortunately the law doesn’t work like that bigyinn. The grey area is the argument.. Have they fulfilled their part of the unwritten contract. I don’t think so and was happy to argue for fairness. (No signage, standing in minus 5 degress while someone sprays you with a pressure washer seems IMO like a distractive environment for such a dangerous piece of equipment.)

Crankboy if you are a real lawyer (I’m not sure STW post history is a real qualification yet :wink:) then you will be well aware that the law does not work via black and white theory. The law would consider all circumstances and portion responsibility based on those circumstances. I believe we have a good case to get out of paying any of the bill but that wouldn’t be entirely fair either IMO

I have the itemised bill and we have agreed to share some responsibility. They pay £160 we pay £114. I won’t charge them for my time or yours and any car repair bills which seems fair (that’s just my nature.)

Fairness wins. It feels good doesn’t it forum soldiers? We stood our ground and for a brief moment in time the world was a fairer place, maybe we will join forces again in the future but whatever happens we can pat ourselves on the back knowing we didn’t hang our heads in shame just because we made a mistake; We stood tall with chin up and proudly screamed ‘I am useless Human and I make mistakes! WHY weren’t there better systems in place so that couldn’t happen?’

The law would consider all circumstances and portion responsibility based on those circumstances.

would your wife really rely on the ‘I was distracted by a car wash’ defence in court?

Seriously. Would you not be distracted if it was minus 5 and someone was spraying you with a pressure washer while you were dressed for work. Is that really a safe environment for dangerous equipment to be used. I am 100% sure that any reasonable person would suggest the position of the 2 are in conflict with a basic level of safety. How much so? I have no idea!

And the court would definately portion some responsibility for the lack of signage.

How much responsibility they would then put on my wife if they considered the position of the pump to be poor and distractive is difficult to answer.
I’m just a forum nobody making it up as I go along just like you fellow warriors.
I reduced the bill, some of you would have paid and been ashamed of your mistake.
I think the result is fair. We move on.

Seems everyone’s right.

The OP’s wife is liable, she caused accidental damage to someone else’s property. As most people are saying.

The OP received a bill, felt the garage were taking the piss and queried it with them, the garage conceded and supplied an amended bill. So, he was right to challenge them.

Group hug, fellas.

Would you not be distracted if it was minus 5 and someone was spraying you with a pressure washer while you were dressed for work.

So if its raining you expect the garage to send someone out with a brolly? or ‘it wouldn’t be safe’.

What about if someone is parked behind her beeping their horn, is that the garages fault? what if you are hassling your wife to hurry up from inside the car? (since you agree she is stupid so entirely possible).

The OP / Wife need to accept that they have caused damage to something and are liable to make good that damage.
Well done that you managed to get the bill knocked down. They probably did it so they wouldn’t have to listen to him justifying why they are so hard done by by having to make reparations for damage they caused.
If you wife is that easily distracted I presume she has no mirrors or radio in the car, in case they distract her similarly?

Fortunately the law doesn’t work like that bigyinn.

nope, that’s why we live in such a nanny state – it’s geared to look after those too stupid to look after themselves. the rest of us just have to put up with it

WHY weren’t there better systems in place so that couldn’t happen?’

Because not everyone should be forced to cater for the bottom 1%?

Mouth breathers

it’s geared to look after those too stupid to look after themselves

Sounds good to me. Some people can’t help being born stupid.

Some people can’t help being born stupid.

Indeed, they can stop trying to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt though.

Indeed, they can stop trying to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt though.

That would be the intelligent thing to do.. oh.. hang on…

That wasn’t aimed you Mr grips by the way.